Beyond Science: Understanding Real Knowledge
In our last article, we looked at how many people make the
mistake of assuming that science is the only way we can know
something is true. We showed how this view, known as scientism, must
be false since it is self-defeating. (If you missed last month's
article, you may read it here: http://www.comereason.org/newsletters/)
This time, I thought we'd look at the idea of how we know that we
know anything at all and how to better understand the differences
between knowledge and beliefs.
Types of Knowledge
Philosophers have spent a lot of time on understanding what it
means when we say we know this or that. In their new book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian
Worldview, J.P. Moreland
and William Lane Craig identify three basic types of knowing. The
most basic type is knowledge by acquaintance which is simply
that you have had some type of direct experience with an object or
idea and therefore know it to be true. The authors offer an example
of "I know the ball is in front of me." Because the ball
is directly present in your conscious experience, you can
confidently know that statement to be true. (1)
A more debated aspect of this type of knowledge is basic
mathematic statements and logical deductions. Some philosophers
argue that we know 2+2=4 in the same sense that we know a ball is in
front of us - it is directly perceived as true. You don't have to go
out and observe 2+2 in different environments around the world or
around the universe to confidently hold that he product will always
turn out to be 4. We understand that it just is that way. Similarly,
we experience the same type of understanding when we argue in this
way: All men are born. Socrates was a man; therefore Socrates must
have been born. That is a logical argument, but we know it to be
true directly.
A second way we know something is through know-how.
Know-how defines certain skills or abilities one may possess. When
someone claims "I know how to play golf", they are
expressing knowledge of ability. Moreland and Craig point out that
knowledge of the laws or mechanics is not necessary to hold this
type of knowledge. They write "For example, one can know how to
adjust one's swing for a curve ball without consciously being aware
that one's stride is changing or without knowing any background
theory of hitting technique." (2)
The third type of knowledge is what is usually debated the most.
Known as propositional knowledge this type of knowledge deals
with statements that make some kind of claim to fact. Statements
such as "I know Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of
the United States", "I know there are nine planets in our
solar system" or "I know humans evolved from apes"
are all propositional statements.
Justified True Beliefs
One of the reasons propositional knowledge has been debated is
because it has been more difficult than other types of knowledge to
define completely and accurately. One of the most foundational
definitions of propositional knowledge is the concept of
"justified true beliefs" that Plato offered in his writing
"Theaetetus". Plato said that if we claim to know
something, then what we claim must indeed be true. If a claim is not
true, then we didn't really know it - we were mistaken. Further, if
we claim to know something we must actually believe the claim to be
true. It makes no sense to know something but not to believe it. If
I say, "I know the ball is on the floor, but I don't believe
the ball is on the floor" I've spoken nonsense.
So truth and belief are what we would call necessary
conditions for knowledge. For knowledge to exist, they must both
be present. However, they are not sufficient conditions for
knowing. Many people believe things, and those beliefs may in fact
be true, but that doesn't mean they know those things. Take the
statement "I know Jones had roast beef for dinner last
night." Now, it may be the case that Jones did indeed have
roast beef for dinner, and it may be the case that I truly believe
Jones had roast beef for dinner, but by making that assertion
without any basis, I've just guessed the right answer - that cannot
be true knowledge.
In order to truly know something, there must be some acceptable
reason to hold that belief. Justified true belief is believing
something that is true with good reason. If I claim to know Jones
had roast beef for dinner last night because it's a Monday and he
always has roast beef on Mondays, and I smelled roast beef coming
from his home, I have good reasons to believe Jones in fact had
roast beef. That is a justified belief that can be counted as
knowledge. If, however, I claim to know Jones had roast beef for
dinner last night because I consulted my Magic 8 Ball, that's not
knowledge since the reasons I've given are spurious. It becomes the
same as guessing.
Knowledge and the Limits of Science
So why does all of this knowledge stuff matter? Because it helps
us understand what is real knowledge and what isn't. When looking at
scientific propositions, we understand we can know certain things
like the speed at which an object falls or what chemical reaction is
necessary to produce nitro-glycerin. Science deals with observations
of the material world, so these are justified beliefs; we can say we
can know such things through science. However, for other claims,
such as whether God exists or whether DNA is the proper basis for
measuring the similarities between humans and other animals (see our
last
newsletter), science has no justification to make claims of
knowledge.
You see, science can only tell us facts about the material world
- so by definition science has no way of meaningfully commenting on
the many other ways we know things. Science can tell us whether a
person's heart is beating faster and he is sweating, but it must
fall silent as to whether the cause of that reaction is lying or
love. Similarly, science cannot tell us about the most unique aspect
of humanity - the human soul. When looking at propositions such as
the existence of God, science has no way of "testing for
God-ness". However, I can know through reasoning that universe
began to exist and whatever begins to exist must have a cause. (3)
I can therefore conclude that if whatever exists must have a cause
and the universe began to exist, then the universe must have a cause
- God. That is a belief that has strong justification for it. It is
knowledge that is outside the scope of science, but it is probably a
more authoritative basis for knowing.
So, even though popular culture looks to the scientist to tell
them "the facts" about all things, science is really
woefully inadequate to explain many aspects of reality. Science just
presupposes certain things - like miracles cannot happen or there
ids not God, and then formulates other theories around them. But
that's not knowledge, that's spurious - it's the same as guessing.
Personal experience, emotions, reason, logic and revelation all
address truth-claims and all can be justifiable in their proper
instances. To limit one's self to science in order to gain knowledge
is like trying to build a house with only a hammer. A hammer can
pound nails, but you wouldn't want to use it to drive a screw and it
would be completely useless to cut wood.
I hope this exploration of knowledge has helped clear up some
misunderstandings of how we know things. Tell me what you think
about the role of science in our culture. Does it play too big a
part? Write me at newsletters@comereason.org
with your comments.
Until next time, God bless.
. |
